Alright then - I'll reopen the thread but be advised that it will be strictly moderated.

Greg1313, What puzzles me is why you let FLT and Collatz threads go on for months but react so strongly to this one particular poster. If the so-called anti-crank standards were more evenly enforced, they would not seem so unfair and directed at one single individual.

The FLT and Collatz threads are following the rules. The guidelines I've recently posted are being followed so if someone thinks they have an elementary proof of FLT/Collatz there's really not much I can do. zylo remains congenial but is given to ignoring input from other members and making obscure references to other posts.

As I said the forums will be strictly moderated when it comes to things of this sort, from here on in. I will give some credibility to your concern - I was somewhat heavy-handed with zylo, but only because I think he could do so much better. I've been impressed by several posts of his.

n-place decimals in [0,1) can be arranged in numerical order, which makes them countable for all n (cardinality of real numbers), and therefore countable in any sub-interval (cardinality of an interval}.

Bijective map of line to a finite surface :
Divide the surface into n-strips. Map [0,1) to CL of first strip, [1,0) to CL of second strip, ......, [n-1,n) to center line of nth strip. Let n $\displaystyle \rightarrow$ approach infinity (induction).

n-place decimals in [0,1) can be arranged in numerical order, which makes them countable for all n (cardinality of real numbers), and therefore countable in any sub-interval (cardinality of an interval}.

If, by "n-place decimals" you mean those decimal that have n decimal places (with only '0' after) then yes, for every n they are countable. However, the collection of all such "n-place decimals", for all n, is precisely the set of all rational numbers, not the real numbers. $\pi$, for example, is not in that set because there is no n for which $\pi$ is a "n-place decimal".

1) What is a real number?
a) Cut of the rational numbers
b) Point on a line
c) Infinite decimal

You missed "limit of a sequence (or sequences) of rational numbers", which I think is the best definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zylo

countable for all n (cardinality of real numbers)

Here we go again. Same old nonsense, no attempt to understand why it's nonsense. I'm not going to bother explaining again. Neither do I care what nonsense you are basing on it. Suffice to say that none of it is mathematics.